National Guard poster boy: Don’t enlist until Bush is gone
posted at 8:00 pm on September 15, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Or until there’s a new strategy in Iraq, he says. It’s Stewart Zamudio, seen earlier this year in television commercials for New York’s Army National Guard and now devoting his time to anti-war interviews with leftist websites — while in uniform. The reason this isn’t all over the news yet is because it was posted to YouTube only yesterday; expect to see plenty of crowing about it this week on MSNBC, at least, where Chris Matthews will won’t ask Hardball regular and noted uniform stickler Jon Soltz whether he disapproves of troops politicking in Army dress when their message comes from the left, not the right. Soltz would be forced to say that he does or risk looking like the biggest hypocrite who ever came down the pike, but I suspect we’d see some “nuance” in his tone that was strangely absent when he was chewing out David Aguina for standing up at Yearly Kos.
Here’s a brief analysis of statutes after the yKos incident governing a soldier’s right or lack thereof to espouse political views while in uniform. Click the image to watch.
Update: Not exactly breaking news but he’s votin’ Democrat.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
I would suspect that nobody in NY would prosecute…
I guess one would have to know the nature of Zamudio’s discharge. If he just got the admin sep or the bar to re-enlistment, he probably got an honorable discharge. ‘course I don’t think he did any time in theater, so I’d have to see the USCA’s end-notes to know the definition of “served honorably in time of war”…
Thanks all, good night!
major john on September 15, 2007 at 11:46 PM
The Air Force and the Air Guard does this. However, be best you can do is enlist as an E-3. Air Force=Airman First Class (A1C) and the Army=Private First Class (PFC). Due to time in service and time in grade restictions on promotions most people hit the first NCO rank at about the same time no matter whether they enlist as an E-1 or E-3.
Tennessee Dave on September 15, 2007 at 9:21 PM
Just an item of “interest”:
“With a need for large numbers of NCOs for combat duty [Vietnam], the Army began the Noncommissioned Officer Candidate Course [aka, "Shake and Bake", with normal rank at selection for entry E2 as I recall], with three sites at Fort Benning, Fort Knox and Fort Sill. After a 12-week course, the graduate became an E-5; those in the top five percent became E-6s.”
MB4 on September 15, 2007 at 11:47 PM
major john
You may be right on the “preaching to the choir” but it never hurts to put a bug in someone’s ear (especially if they are in Arlington). Sometimes that’s all it takes to get the ball rolling. It just has to roll across the “right” Generals desk at the “right” time and “amazing things happen”. I’ve personally watched this process in action several times.
dddave on September 15, 2007 at 11:49 PM
That is interesting. And a good idea insofar as it is military merit based.
Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 11:53 PM
We’re talking the difference between E1 and E2 here. It’s nothing like Amway and certainly would not pertain to NCOs. I think you probably knew that, but are just trying to be cute.
reaganaut on September 15, 2007 at 11:55 PM
Well, apparently it’s at least the difference between E1 and E3. I’m not sure if it isn’t more because it’s talking about “stripes”.
I don’t know your rank structure. How many stripes does an E1 have and how many striped an E3?
Christoph on September 16, 2007 at 12:00 AM
That is interesting. And a good idea insofar as it is military merit based.
Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 11:53 PM
I knew a couple of guys in RVN who got their E5 that way. To be selected for ‘Shake and Bake” the requirements were high recommendation after Basic/AIt and good aptitude test scores. They were both quite sharp, but of course did not have the “seasoning” of more traditional E5’s and E6’s. I think that they both planned on getting out after their 2 or 3 years.
MB4 on September 16, 2007 at 12:01 AM
When the Utah National Guard website describes it as “Stripes for Buddies”, I would know that how exactly?
I still don’t know that.
Christoph on September 16, 2007 at 12:01 AM
I don’t know your rank structure. How many stripes does an E1 have and how many striped an E3?
Christoph on September 16, 2007 at 12:00 AM
As I recall, no stripe for E1, one stripe for E2 and one stripe with “rocker” (like a triangle) for E3.
MB4 on September 16, 2007 at 12:04 AM
It’s still a bizarre scenario!
Christoph on September 16, 2007 at 12:05 AM
Alright, well I’ll clarify then, it’s a
for a buddy then.
If you have some college you can be a PFC (still one stripe), or if you have a Bachelor’s you can be an E-4 (no stripes at all ironically).
You can get 100 buddies to join, but you won’t be a sergeant.
reaganaut on September 16, 2007 at 12:23 AM
Sh*tbag. Made it all the way to SPC, and apparently thinks he’s Omar F’ing Bradley. Funny how so many of these leftist darlings are tore up from the floor up.
ReubenJCogburn on September 16, 2007 at 12:27 AM
I see I’m a bit late getting to this conversation, but for what it’s worth… the Stripes for Buddies program allows you to enter the National Guard (Army, not sure about Air) as high as E-3. With a college degree you can enter as an E-4. Without a college degree you have to finish Advanced Individual Training (AIT) and have time in service to reach E-4.
Up to E-4 is pretty much just time in service. To reach the NCO ranks (E-5 and above) requires competition against other soldiers to ensure the higher quality individuals move up first. E-5 is the first rank where you have leadership responsibility over other soldiers, so allowing people to enter at E-1 through E-4 isn’t that big of a deal.
BadgerHawk on September 16, 2007 at 12:34 AM
Thanks for clarifying.
Christoph on September 16, 2007 at 12:36 AM
Kook photos:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/16/0330/09834
ArmyAunt on September 16, 2007 at 12:46 AM
I just wanted to chime in about the rate/rank thing… in the Navy, at least when I signed up (2000), going to language school for anything more than a cat 1 language got you ‘push-button’ status. That meant upon graduation from DLI, you got to wear E-4 (and get paid for it) as long as you had enough time-in-rate. It was optional at the time for my language (Ru), but I believe it’s now manditory.
Of course, when I left DLI, I had been in only a year, and had to wait until I finished GAFB to become a PO3. And nobody took me seriously until I put on PO2, after my 3rd test.
My husband, btw, was (is) an Eagle Scout, and was bumped to E-3 at the end of boot camp. That bahstahd made PO1 in just under 6 years… My point being that a bump ahead in rate early on may or may not be an advantage or disadvantage, as there are other factors (job skills, command, test-taking ability) that come into play. : )
the goddess anna on September 16, 2007 at 2:36 AM
He is supporting Hilary
That tells you where he is.
IQ of a pee brain
investwize999 on September 16, 2007 at 7:55 AM
So what, 10% of the people think Elvis is alive, 5% think the landing on the moon was staged, 30% think Carter was a good president. There are kooks in every segment of society. We have people here ranting against Fred maybe 50 to 60 times in just one day, people who think Mitt is the son of satan, people who think Rudy knew about 9/11. They find one nit-witt, in a uniform (we had one uniform officer lie about his men cutting off ears) making these statements…big deal. I hope they laugh at him, and ask him if he believes Bush was the mastermind behind 9/11.
right2bright on September 16, 2007 at 8:03 AM
Great post, some people should learn decorum. No need to call names, when no one was attacking.
right2bright on September 16, 2007 at 8:07 AM
Give him a haircut……and then a dishonorable discharge.
LakeRuins on September 16, 2007 at 8:26 AM
There seems to be some confusion here.
In 1903 Congress enacted the Dick Act (AKA the “Militia Act”) that created the National Guard. Prior to 1903 there was no section of the armed forces known as the National Guard, though there was a “National Guard Association,” an association (or lobby) of private and state militias that existed at that time. Subsequently, the Dick Act has been revised several times.
The Association wanted federal recognition (and federal money). The Department of the Army wanted direct control over training and equipping. It was a win-win.
Second, the National Guard is *not* the Militia mentioned in Article 1, section 8, and the Second Amendment. The National Guard is part of the ORGANIZED militia, which by statute (see 13 USC 311) is the National Guard and Naval Militia.
The Militia is defined as:
Third, the National Guard is under complete and plenary control of Congress, see: Perpich v. DOD, (1970). The governors of the states may call them up in response to emergencies, such as civil unrest or disaster, but the Guard is first and foremost a creation of the Congress and reports to it.
This has ramifications concerning the UCMJ and its applicability. While a member of the Guard is on active duty, whether for drill or for disaster relief, the UCMJ applies. Remember, the UCMJ is how discipline is enforced in the military. When the member of the Guard is not activated or drilling, the UCMJ does not apply because the member is a civilian.
Of course, other provisions of the US Code and individual state laws apply, as they do to every citizen.
As to the twerp in question, I have no way of knowing if he was on active duty or not. Hence, he may be guilty of violating several provisions of the UCMJ, such as disparagement, or not. If he was activated, (or drilling) then I hope he IS prosecuted for disparagement or conduct unbecoming.
Okay, that was my 2 cents….
georgej on September 16, 2007 at 8:36 AM
Don’t ask don’t tell, but this clown looks light in the sneakers.
Wade on September 16, 2007 at 9:54 AM
The way things currently work, if he is breaking a federal military rule while in uniform then it is 99.99% certain that he is breaking a National Guard rule. However, jurisdiction of enforcement of the rules falls to New York if he is not currently under federal orders.
Usually, either Guard, Reserve, or Active, when we get people like this running their mouth against the government and/or military while in uniform, they usually have an ax to grind.
They are usually people who do not have what it takes to be a good leader or soldier and are making excuses blaming the military for their personal short-comings, rather than simply take responsibility for improving themselves.
Lawrence on September 16, 2007 at 9:57 AM
But he did have what it takes to be a good model. Which makes him thoroughly qualified to sit-down in front of a four-star general and the President and give them both a lecture on military strategy.
Christoph on September 16, 2007 at 10:47 AM
Too bad the National Guard belongs to the state and it is very doubtful the Governor of New York would do anything. But if on active orders he is then answerable to Federal violations under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So in the unlikely event during a drill weekend he might shoot is mouth of in uniform in front of a camera and we own his butt. A couple of years in a Military Detention Facility might do him some good.
KC-135A on September 16, 2007 at 10:53 AM
No, only if federalized. Otherwise he’s subject to NY state regulations, but not UCMJ. Believe it or not.
Christoph on September 16, 2007 at 10:58 AM
Wait doesn’t he mean “I never was in Iraq so I don’t know wtf I’m talking about first hand.”
Shall I take it as more anonymous military sources???
Mojack420 on September 16, 2007 at 1:25 PM
This makes him morally superior.
Seriously — is this not the sorriest excuse for a soldier you’ve ever seen in your life?
Christoph on September 16, 2007 at 1:32 PM
True.
Each state has it’s own state UCMJ and/or equivalent which they are supposed to enforce themselves. But this doesn’t meant each state enforces it’s own rules in the same way as other states or in the same way as the feds.
Mouthy people like the
guy“model” noted above are generally temporary members that either quite or are eventually asked to leave.Remember this is a volunteer force. The folks that make trouble for the other volunteers are often encouraged to voluntarily leave.
Lawrence on September 16, 2007 at 2:29 PM
He can’t even keep his hair cut right.
He’s pretty typical of people who are not in for the service, so much as for the free benefits. When they actually have to be and act military they get all whiney and flakey.
Lawrence on September 16, 2007 at 2:34 PM
Give him his wish. Send him over to Afghanistan. I am sure the others serving there would be glad to see him.
Wade on September 16, 2007 at 2:51 PM
I am sure the others in his unit would be pleased for the activation of the unit.
Wade on September 16, 2007 at 2:53 PM
I enlisted when Carter was President (you know, the one who was responsible for starting all of the Islamic mess we are now having to deal with), and I felt great apprehensions about enlisting while Carter was President.
I kind of thought, “Don’t enlist until Carter is gone”.
The difference between then and now, though, is that we had a “world citizen” in the White House back then, and a TRUE AMERICAN in the White House now.
jimbo2 on September 16, 2007 at 5:17 PM
a$$hole needs a haircut and a shave.
C
pk on September 16, 2007 at 5:21 PM
“Too bad the National Guard belongs to the state”
I know we’re discussing “nits” here, but this is not quite correct.
PERPICH v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, 496 U.S. 334 (1990)
[Sorry, I mistyped the date of the decision in my earlier post]
In other words, according to the USSC, Congress controls the guard because the Guard is part of the federal reserve forces.
There are two titles in the US Code that apply to the Guard: Title 10 and Title 32 of the U.S. Code. Title 10 does not apply here.
32 USC Sec. 101 defines the army national guard as:
BTW, this does not mean that the state cannot have its own militia. Such militias are not part of the National Guard and the state is responsible for paying the entire freight. I believe that Texas is one such state that has a seperate state militia in addition to the National Guard. Texans are free to correct me if I’m wrong.
Section 110 states: “The President shall prescribe regulations, and issue orders, necessary to organize, discipline, and govern the National Guard.”
This means that the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the National Guard, even though the Guard is nominally at the beck and call of the state’s governor when not in federal service.
Section 326 states:
This means that military justice shall be uniform nationwide including in every state and territory, Puerto Rico [and Guam], and DC, irrespective of whether the National Guard of a state is in federal service or not.
Section 327:
This places the mechanism of disclipline under courts martial and not under the state courts. This does not immunize members of the Guard from state courts, it just establishes the structure for disclipline inside of the Guard, and that structure is identical to that of the US Army.
And one more cite, also from Section 327:
Pub. L. 107-314, div. A, title V, Sec. 512(e), Dec. 2, 2002, 116
So, what does this all mean? In sum, the National Guard, irrespective of whether or not it is in federal service or not, is a FEDERAL entity that is funded by and controlled by Congress. It is required to follow the UCMJ in discliplining troops, though each state may enact their own punishments. The state code of military justice does have flexibility but it cannot conflict with the UCMJ, or the Guard for that state will be defunded, their equipment repossesed, and no longer recognized.
The current model state code of military justice is a word document at http://www.ngb.army.mil/jointstaff/ps/ja/conference/2007/MODEL_STATE_CODE_OF_MILITARY_JUSTICE.doc
Articles 88 is identical with the UCMJ.
So, in summary, as New York’s code of military justice is identical with the UCMJ, and as the President of the United States can order a court martial (as well as anyone else he so delegates), EITHER the Guard of state of New York can prosecute OR the DOD can.
Bottom line: As Zamudio made his remarks in uniform, he may be prosecuted for his disparaging remarks about the President. And in my opinion, should be.
georgej on September 16, 2007 at 6:42 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2